19 November, 2018

Blog

The LLRC And Devolution: Jehan, Paikiasothy And Politics Of Skipping The caveats

By Malinda Seneviratne –

Malinda Seneviratne

When the Government proposed setting up a Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), there were howls of protests from the likes of Jehan Perera and Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu.  Many of these I/NGO operators didn’t even appear before the LLRC perhaps fearing that the commissioners would ask them to submit in full their various comments to the media, in the form of statement or political commentary.  When the LLRC finally came out with a ‘Report’, they changed their tune.  They said ‘Implement the LLRC Recommendation!’

They forgot, conveniently, that the LLRC had exceeded its mandate.  That’s ok.  A lot of people, after all, are happy to ‘exceed’.  More importantly, they appear to be blissfully unaware of two things. Firstly, that the LLRC was a far cry from a body enacted to draft a constitution. Secondly, some of the recommendations require constitutional amendment and even referenda.  A third ‘forget’ can be added: the Government is not bound (as per the mandate-limitation) to implement all of the recommendations.  There’s can-do and cannot-do in all this. There is, moreover, ‘done’, ‘doing’ and ‘forget it’ too.  There is wanted-speed and doable speed.

What has excited these ladies and gentlemen, and of course some members of the Opposition, is the inclusion of the word ‘devolution’.  True, it’s not ‘federalism’, that F-word dominating what passed for ‘political discourse’ when the reins of power were held by patently anti-Sinhala, anti-Buddhist and indeed pro-LTTE, pro-Eelam elements, but then again, in an LTTE-les Sri Lanka of ‘reduced circumstances’, if ‘straw’ was sought, ‘devolution’ was good enough a cling-on.
What is most interesting is the fact that true to form, they have taken the LLRC recommendation on devolution totally out of context and have never once referred to the relevant caveats.  They would do well to read the points elaborated in Section 9.231 of the LLRC Report, which reads, ‘Devolution should necessarily be people-centric in nature’ and is followed by 4 key caveats.

Let’s take these one by one.  Caveat A imposes the condition of ‘harmony’.  Now if devolution uses the current provincial boundaries (randomly drawn, let us not forget), which constitute the basis for the (diminished) Eelamist demarcation, if the majority of Tamils people live outside the North and East (for example), how on earth can devolution along these chauvinist lines powered by myth-models and exaggeration inspire anything but suspicion and anxiety among the Sinhalese?  They would consider such devolution as ‘Threat to Existence’!  There won’t be harmony. ‘Oneness’ would be wrecked.

Caveat B speaks of empowerment.  This is good. It calls for much better governance and greater affirmation of citizenship-meaning.  One does not need ‘devolution’ for this and if any community feels disadvantaged then all that needs to be remembered is that the felt ‘discrimination’ will continue to prevail in the other seven provinces (where the majority of Tamils live).  Devolution does not combat discrimination; better laws might.

Caveat C is about human rights.  The upholding or subverting of human rights has nothing to do with the structure of the state (for example, whether it is a federal, unitary or other arrangement).  So Caveat C, like Caveat B, is an add-on that is not devolution-specific.

Finally, Caveat D.  It is about ‘building on what we have’, i.e. the local government institutions.  It is about greater and meaningful participation.  Such ‘democracy,’ again does not require devolution as per the 13th Amendment, 13 Plus posturing etc., but about scripting in checks and balances into the relevant articles of the constitution.  Caveat D also unequivocally salutes the need to ‘provide for safeguarding the territorial integrity and unity of Sri Lanka whilst fostering its rich diversity’. The devolution debate has gone too far with taking as ‘fact’ and ‘legitimate’ the extrapolations of Tamil chauvinism for any power-devolution to established provincial lines not be seen as a threat to territorial integrity and unity.

Take all these caveats and power devolution to existing lines can be safely ruled out as ‘not in line with LLRC recommendations’.  The only devolution that abides by these caveats, then, is a formulation that trashes current provincial boundaries and re-draws geographical units in more scientific (e.g. based on river-basins) ways with close attention to ensuring that no community, large or small, feels threatened.

Given all this, one thing is clear: those who have been waving the LLRC Report have just seen one word, devolution.  That, or else, they are intellectually dishonest.  Take your pick!

*Malinda Seneviratne is the Chief Editor of ‘The Nation’ and his articles can be found at www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    Intellectual dishonesty eh? Let’s start by looking at this little article.
    1. There is an assertion that the LLRC exceeded its mandate – no specifics given.
    2. There is an insinuation that the LLRC had enacted a draft constitution. It was not – it merely RECOMMENDED that the Constitution ought to be amended along broad lines. That is a far cry from “enacting a draft constitution”.
    3.The people who expressed distrust in the LLRC have not changed their tune at all. They asked for more than what the LLRC had recommended. They are saying that at the very least the LLRC recommendations should be implemented, especially since its the government’s own creation. Stating that they have changed their tune is outright dishonesty.
    4. The fact that some of the recommendations require constitutional amendments is a red herring in the context of this article. So what if they do? That is precisely why the Government is being urged to introduce those amendments!
    5. No one is alleging that the Government is bound to implement these recommendations, except commonsense! Of course the Government may decide (and has decided) not to implement them. But the exercise of the discretion not to implement demonstrates the bad faith of the government.
    6. Malinda gives his own interpretation of what the caveats are claims that devolution along the current provincial boundaries are ruled out! The LLRC if it felt that the current boundaries ought to be ruled out would have said so. The fact that it didn’t demonstrates that the interpretation given to the caveats find sustenance only in the creative mind of Malinda.
    7. All his interpretations are wonky. Just take the first – he decides that if there are more Tamils and Muslims outside the North and East then there would be suspicion. What about the fact that people have been displaced by the war! Just because Malinda has such fears does it necessarily mean that other Singhalese will have that fear? Dont forget that prior to independence the Singhalese were happy with those boundaries.

    AND he has the gall to talk of intellectual dishonesty!

    • 0
      0

      Excellent Analysis Sulaiman, appreciate you Scholarly response to an idiotic article written by an extreme racist. It is a disgrace to our News media to have such a stupid racist as an editor. No wonder his news paper is read only by a handful of bafoons in SL.

    • 0
      0

      Sulaiman;
      Thank you for, once again, exposing the blatant dishonesty that goes beyond the “intellectual” of this lower form of journalistic life.
      this is a piece of you-know-what to whom the word “shame” does not exist. One day, if there is justice in this world, he will get his!

  • 0
    0

    Malinda,

    13th amendment plus, was President Mahinda Rajapalse’s postulation! He has now changed his posture . Why? What sort of dishonesty was this? The Tamil political formations here, the Tamil Diaspora, India and the Wesst would not have reacted as they have, if MR had not led them to believe that he would implement a 13th amendment plus. If he had offered and implemented the 13th amendment plus on the lines of the APRC report, there would not have been a need for the LLRC. Do not blame others. The president has to shoulder the biggest share of the blame. He tried to play a crafty game in which he has been caught red handed.

    Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    • 0
      0

      Some of the other things Rajapakse said:

      MAHINDA RAJAPAKSA TO THE LOS ANGELES WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL – 28 SEPTEMBER 2007
      “Ladies and Gentlemen, our goal remains a negotiated and honourable end to this unfortunate conflict in SriLanka. Our goal is to restore democracy and the rule of law to all the people of our country. 54% of SriLanka’s Tamil population now lives in areas other than the north and the east of the country, among theSinhalese and other communities. There is no ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka – as some media mistakenlyhighlight. Sri Lanka’s security forces are fighting a terrorist group, not a particular community.”

      “I see no military solution to the conflict. The current military operations are only intended to exert pressure on the LTTE to convince them that terrorism cannot bring them victory.” (Excerpt) http://www.president.gov.lk/speech_latest_28_09_2007.asp
      * * * * *

      “….WE ARE EQUALLY COMMITTED TO SEEKING A NEGOTIATED AND SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION TO THE CONFLICT IN SRI LANKA” MAHINDA RAJAPAKSA TO THE HINDUSTAN TIMES LEADERSHIP SUMMIT AT NEW DELHI ON 13 OCTOBER 2007
      “It is necessary for me to repeat here that while my Government remains determined to fight terrorism, we are equally committed to seeking a negotiated and sustainable solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka. If those who carry arms against the State are willing to enter a process of genuine negotiation towards a peaceful and democratic solution, the government and the people will reciprocate. In this, it would not be out of place to look forward to understanding and assistance from our regional neighbours and friends, especially those
      with whom we share the strongest bonds throughout history. We will see in such understanding and assistance the true signs of emerging greatness”. (Excerpt)
      http://www.president.gov.lk/speech_latest_13_10_2007.asp
      * * * * *

      “WE ARE STILL READY TO TALK,..” MAHINDA RAJAPAKSA’S SPEECH AT OXFORD UNION – 14 MAY 2008
      “As our forces seek to defeat and disarm the LTTE, we are firm in our resolve to have a negotiated solution to the crisis in Sri Lanka. I do not believe in a military solution. We have attempted talks with the LTTE on several occasions – thrice since my election as the President – but they have not reciprocated. They have always left the talks with lame excuses. We are still ready to talk, once we are certain of their genuine intent for a political solution… and their readiness to give up arms”. (Excerpt)
      http://www.president.gov.lk/speech_New.asp?Id=51

    • 0
      0

      Dr.Rajasingham Narendran,
      Malinda has made an apt elaboration on the function LLRC and its recommendations. And I agree with him whole-heartedly.

      Tke Obama for example: While campaigning first time for the Presidency and also on the day he took oath as the President of the US, Obama promised publicly that he will shut down the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison within six months. Today, Obama is well in to his second term; Guantanamo Bay prison is still there. And thats only one of his too many promises that were gone astray.

      Like Obama, Rajapakse may well have realized promising is one thing but doing it is different thing altogether. Like Obama, Rajapakse may well have realized the realities of realpolitik.

      Obama has made the said promise to his voters but had not fulfilled it to date. Rajapakse on the otherhand never promised his voters to implement LLRC report. In that sense Rajapakse is a more honest man than Obama.
      Leela

      • 0
        0

        Leela:

        Mahinda Rajapakse – an honest man? A slime would be a better word. pardon me and correct me if I am wrong. In the long list of his “broken promises” this is only one. One can only continue with this charade up to a point. After the veneer wears off, not only he, but even those who try to defend him will be called with the same label. When Mahinda Samarasinghe (MS) was talking during the UNHRC in March, many were shaking their heads in disbelief – just like the way Colin Powell was defending the US in the UN on the purported indulgence of Iraq in weapons of mass destruction, which eventually proved to be a farce and even his compatriot Tony Blair of UK lost his face, and eventually his job. Let me remind you that an undertaking was given in the very UNHRC to fully implement the LLRC, as much as the 13A. I honestly don’t know with what face MS goes to the UNHRC to continue bluffing. A real shame isn’t it?

        • 0
          0

          OBAMA IS A LIAR;
          AND MAHINDA JARAPASSA IS A GREAT LIAR AND A CHEATER /LOOTER TOO.

      • 0
        0

        Leela

        “Like Obama, Rajapakse may well have realized promising is one thing but doing it is different thing altogether.”

        Therefore
        __
        Rajapakse __
        __

        • 0
          0

          Leela

          Sorry for the mess above

      • 0
        0

        Leela

        “Like Obama, Rajapakse may well have realized promising is one thing but doing it is different thing altogether.”

        Therefore

        Rajapakse = Obama

      • 0
        0

        Leela,

        I remember Obama tried hard to do what he promised with regard to Guantanamo bay. However, he was thwarted by the dominated Congress which refused to authorise funds for the transfers to mainland prisons. An executive order authorising their transfer required a declaration that the prisoners were no longer a security risk. an impossibility. The other alternative was to release them , which was unthinkable.

        Mahinda Rajapakse has a captive and rubber stamp parliament. He is now permitted unlimited terms and all restraints envisaged in the 17th amendment have been thrown overboard. He threw out the CJ, without allowing her due process. All this thanks to a parliament that is in the President’s pocket.

        What was the problem that he faced in implementing what he promised to the whole world? Did he even try?

        Dr. Rajasingham Narendran.

  • 0
    0

    It is wrong to say that LLRC exceeded its mandate. Once a commission is appointed, that too a commission which was empowered to fact find and report with recommendations, there can be no boundaries. If LLRC really wanted to exceed its powers it could have even called the Armed Forces to an inquiry and made recommendations. These recommendations could be of any type including recommendations to the Justice Dept to file legal actions. Has the author forgotten that LLRC in fact did not provide adequate time to all those who wanted to give submissions in person and requested them to provide it in writing. Can you imagine how forceful and impactful the personal submissions would have been by those who were affected on both sides of the war. However literate a person is, the impact of a written submission can never be compared to a superior oral submission with feelings. So lets not go there and say LLRC exceeded its mandate. What we have to see is has LLRC made any wrong recommendations based on wrong information, the answer is no.

  • 0
    0

    Dear Malinida,

    You are losing the plot. You are unable to operate intelligently in the new media – because the new media talks back. As you can see the comments on your posts are longer than your articles.

    Now it is fully understandable, the Colombo Telegraph needs to present a “Balanced View” – because of the existential Crisis where it is difficult to be a journalist and be alive at the same time in Sri Lanka. So it is a wise decision of Colombo Telegraph to open up the forum so that the “Grandfather types” can write articles – because they watched Colombo burn and now they have nothing to do. As you can see no one cares to respond to them; because, we do not normally engage with grandfathers while they talk to us. But they are nice types and we need them for maintaining balance.

    In your case Malinda, I appreciate that you are in a tough position. Because in a newspaper you can write what you are paid for. There is no feedback. Dumb people consume it, Smart people read it and understand what they newspaper men are paid to write and then use their intelligent to interpret the reality.

    But here, you are exposing yourself. Sometimes there is “the Muslim in you” but now we clearly see the “racist” in you. Not the normal type, but the “over educated type”. The Tamils were blessed with lots of such types that kept Tamil society blind to its own cancer – racism, triggered of course by the Sinhalese mobs and their intellectual justifies.

    Malinda, Its uncool to be a racist. It is uncouth too.

    You are being reminded here, constantly that the rest of your Kin, The Muslims and Tamils have gone beyond your mental state. Sadly you are publicly demonstrating here, to your backers, that you are an utter waste of money.

    In a way it is good, because it demonstrates that money and power cannot along buy intelligent and principled people (like Jehan and Paki) – it can only attract a shameless typology which will help accelerates its collapse.

    • 0
      0

      Jehan and Paki, principled people ! How sad !!

      • 0
        0

        Rifika:

        So, who do you think it should be – Mahinda Rajapakse, Gotabaya or even Mervyn Silva.

        • 0
          0

          jansee

          “So, who do you think it should be – Mahinda Rajapakse, Gotabaya or even Mervyn Silva.”

          Also VP, KP, Karuna, Karunanithy, Pillayan, Seeman, ……….

          • 0
            0

            I agree with all the names you have mentioned, minus Seeman.

  • 0
    0

    A schoolboy’s interpretation of the LLRC report and the views of its supporters and critics. Malinda’s new schoolboy picture gives a clue to the mental maturity of the writer.

    Sulaiman’s retort is detailed and excellent.

  • 0
    0

    Well said Sulaiman.

  • 0
    0

    Malinda

    I’m inclined to agree with you the I/NGO operators changed their tune on the LLRC. They did so after seeing the reaction of the U.S. to the report. It is only to be expected given the nature of the global regime they are part of.

    I also agree with your allusions as to what direction the country should take in solving the ethnic issues. As you suggest the emphasis should be more on individual rights and citizenship rather than on collective rights and devolution. Because devolution is a slippery slope. It would only feed the fissiparous tendencies among communities. On the other hand working towards a multi-ethnic, multi-religious Sri Lankan state based on the equality of all citizens – however idealistic it may sound at the moment – is the only way out of the gathering storm.

    We who have been maimed and traumatized by the racist politics of the past 50 years have lost our ability to think outside the box. But if we want to break out of the impasse we have to start thinking differently. It’s simple as that. The post 2009 generations would have a totally different life experience if we don’t give into the threats by racists to return – BBS and Tamil Homeland devolutionists. Instead we have to embrace evolution towards unity in diversity. In the long run such an approach would foment a new overarching Sri Lankan identity ultimately paving the way for a pluralistic, secular Sri Lankan state.

    There is a silver lining in that it is only the politicians, power brokers and professional opinion makers with vested interests who want to keep racist politics a going concern. Fortunately the majority of the ordinary people in all communities, though intimidated into silence, seem to have more sense and yearn for things that really matter: fundamental rights and freedoms as equal citizens, rule of law and security.

    Everyone should have the right to life, liberty and security of person. It’s never too late to start.

  • 0
    0

    Dr. Rajasinghan… 13+ or 13++ can be implemented only when an enviorment permits to do so.
    with diaspora vultures, NGO vultures, All sectors of Christian church with hidden agendas, nothing is condusive right now.

    There need to be an absolute sincererity shown prior to implementation. As for the GOSL, they are not going to implement and then looking for the sincererity in people.

    There are whole lot of agendas to destabilise Sri Lanka.

    • 0
      0

      Are you sure its the others who have an agenda or is it the Government of Sri Lanka. Are you so blind to see whats happening in the country now? There is no democracy. Are you not worried about losing democracy or are you yourself crazy.

    • 0
      0

      Did the president not know the environment when he postulated 13+ and proclaimed it to the whole world? The emphasis is here on the president and what he said and did not do. The environment was conducive after the war and is yet conducive. The TNA is yet content to accept and live with 13, although I believe once in the northern PC , it will raise hell about its impotence. However, 13+ if formulated on the lines of the APRC recommendations, if implemented would have been acceptable to many. The Chritians are not a fifth column, despite the cockeyed history and theory being assembled by Prof. Hoole. The latter is a lone drummer and he marches to his own tune . He does not represent any phenomenon. Let us not invent a new bogey . We have enough bogeys we carry on our overburdened shoulders.

      Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    • 0
      0

      Hi Anonymous Jathika Muththa

      Everyone else is vultures but not the creator of the so-called vultures.

      There is no simple sincerity on the part of the government and you want an absolute one. What a fallacy.

      Whole lots of agenda’s are being created by Sri Lanka and what is experienced is the response from others.

      Please read what Anpu has quoted from Mahinda’s speeches above. Hope it will open your mind up.

      Pro.Vitharane in April 2009 said APRC proposals will be implemented after the war victory. After his 80 birthday party at the cabinet meeting the old man has buried even his socialist scruples (if had them) and is in intellectual hiding. What a waste of resources when he flew around the world to create the APRC report. This is what is called the intellectual dishonesty.

      Why doesn’t MR pay the Bell Pottingers likes to produce a resolution to the conflict with the shuffling of borrowed money from China as the internal processes have miserably failed so far.

    • 0
      0

      J muththa:

      So, you are still in your slumber. No, after all these years of lies and deceits, no one believes SL will, on its own volition, implement the 13A. It will be FORCED to implement. If it is lucky it may get off the hook with just the 13A, otherwise it could be worse. The time for you Sinhalese to bargain is gone. You know the meaning of shooting yourself in the foot? Ask MR – he may explain to you better.

  • 0
    0

    Facts cannot be removed by barking at the caravan by some English-speaking crowd.

    1. LLRC was against 13-A. (13-A recognized a Tamil homeland in the Eastern P)
    2. LLRC is for village level empowerment of people.
    3. This is because Sri Lanka ethnic population map is like a scrambled egg. (APRC solution was have Tamil police stations in Sinhala villages!)
    4. MahindaR will come and say what he meant by 13-A plus was gving power to Tamil villages at the village level instead of Rajiv Gandhi boys plan of making separatist Tamil party men Chief Minister and ministers in N-EP so that they can work full-time to create an Eelam (and one day get Tamil Nadu separated from Indian Delhi)

    5. Because MahindaR is getting politically stupid and weak, Bodu Bala Sena came rising to the occasion.

    These are facts. Let anybody come and disprove them.

  • 0
    0

    The writers position seems to be ‘zero’ action to deal with the fundamental issue of political empowerment of the minorities through devolutionary good governance process. His anti-sentiments have been reflected by such mindset for many years. This sentiment is now overtly practiced by the MR government. Further the analysis is adequate reflection of the clandestine mindset of the government.

    The writer states: ‘If the majority of Tamil people live outside the North and East (for example), how on earth can devolution along these chauvinist lines powered by myth-models and exaggeration inspire anything but suspicion and anxiety among the Sinhalese?’ This stand is none other than paranoiac phobia that is being marketed well to inflict fear and undermine any meaningful effort to deal with the problem responsibly. Muslim population of India is greater than the those living in Pakistan that was brought to being by the British Raj. What is needed is a devolution that will not aggravate further demand for devolution or separation. Implementation of the meager 13th Amendment speaks volume of the intent of the successive governments. This process has not even empowered the Sinhala masses and has become a white elephant to fatten the purses of those elected.

    The writer on ‘empowerment’ states: ‘This is good. It calls for much better governance and greater affirmation of citizenship-meaning’. Having rejected the idea of good governance through responsible devolution, the stand alone approach of centralized governance is a panacea for progressive failure and eventual disaster. What is needed is a process of disaster management as the governance in Sri Lanka is only germinating anti- sentiments through the that is boorishly oxygenating hate to repress the minorities.

    A deep analysis of the centralized governance since independence will confirm that authoritarianism is reaching the peak. Unless it is dealt with by the collective will of the people, it will be panacea for uncontrollable anarchy in the future.

  • 0
    0

    IF THE L L R C IS A STUMBLE BLOCK TO BE IMPLEMENTED THEN THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED:

    RE-INTRODUCE THE NATIONAL ANTHEM TO BE SUNG IN TAMIL WHEREVER NEED BE.

    APPOINT HONEST, EDUCATED TAMILS INTO THE KEY MINISTERIAL POSTS.

    ALLOW THE TAMILS TO BE FREE AND INDEPENDENT WITHOUT BEING HARASSED.

    GIVE THE TAMILS ALL THE BACKING THEY NEED TO START THEIR LIFE ONCE AGAIN.

    THE TAMILS ARE HARDWORKING CITIZENS GIVE THEM ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES.

    SELECT THE BEST BRAINS TO STEER THE COUNTRY IN THE RIGHT PATH.

    AT PRESENT ALL THE TAMILS ARE TREATED AS TERRORISTS, WHICH IS WRONG.

    THE TAMILS ARE SRI LANKAN CITIZENS AND THEY SHOULD BE TREATED EQUAL.

    THE UNIVERSITIES SHOULD TAKE IN STUDENTS NONE OTHER THAN BUT ON MERIT.

    IF THEY ARE GIVEN THESE THEN THE L L R C IS ALMOST DONE.

  • 0
    0

    What a brilliant summation of the guts of this LLRC.

    Take Sambandan, Sumnathiran,Premachandran and of course Paksiakothty out ,you will have total reconciliation in no time.

    Didn’t all these Hon MPs and the NGO heavy staged a sort of “Sathyagraha” when the majority of the right minded peoplle fronted up to put their two cents worth?.

  • 0
    0

    I find an objective take on this article that that precisely sitting on the lap of the ruling body. The author clearly sidelining the LLRC commission by saying “LLRC exceeded it’s mandate”.

    If Malinada has taken a position of justice as a primary concern and be critical of all the segments; the government, LLRC Commission as well as I/NGOs that would be the most welcome approach as a journalist.

    And today there are lot People like Malinda can do than the critics of the regime (as he is within the regime), by taking a principle (justice and common good) base position rather than being sympathetic to power.

  • 0
    0

    Malinda , perhaps it is time for you get back to the mono lingual broad cast mode. because there you will be measures by the volume of your out put, here you are measured by what others think of what you are writing about. Just take out your ruler and measure the length of your article and the length of the comments. If you are able to do that , we will be more impressed with your abilities than we are now.

  • 0
    0

    Malinda Seneviratne chief editor of what? You mean the
    Consumer Affairs Journal the nation is being thrust upon?
    Ask him to comment on coca cola and kalu dodol. He may be
    better at it than flaming communal flames and arousing
    public passions. That is all such egotistic educated eunuchs
    could do. Do you want to set the country on fire? We are told
    that even Star Dust boss casino boss, your paymaster, does
    not like your ways. How true!!!!

  • 0
    0

    Lovely comments. Thanks for reading, folks. :) As for measures of article and criticism, the ‘intellectuals’ here would do well to consider the ‘representative’ nature of the commenting-wallahs of CT. Sulaiman, I made representations to the LLRC, praised their work, took issue with them going overboard and have nevertheless considered the entire exercise to have more positives than negatives. Park, yes, there were imperfections (you’ve pointed them out) but that doesn’t forbid exceeding mandate. Exceeding mandate, as I noted above is not a huge crime, it needed to be mentioned, that’s all. War-displaced: true. The peninsula was ethnically cleansed. By the LTTE. Now there is no war, are the ‘displaced’ Tamils lining up to re-settle in the ‘traditional homelands’? Get real, here. As for missing the plot, I was merely pointing out that some devolutionists took certain recommendations out of context and were therefore being mischievous. I also point out that they operate as though the govt is BOUND to implement recommendations. Neither do they appreciate the fact that some recommendations, even if accepted, require constitutional amendment, an eventuality that is easy-say, hard-done, but that’s not their problem because rhetoric is served for a different kind of politics. Rajasingham: yes, i am opposed to devolution along lines dictated by Tamil Chauvinism, but as I have written elsewhere devolution on different, more scientific lines, makes sense as long as it comes with structures that ensure far better governance (meaning that this constitution should go). I agree totally with your last paragraph. ‘The people’, yes, not agents of subversion as we find among the anti-regime hawks. The Presiden’t ’13A Plus’ was a horrendous blunder, but one which we can use….as long as the lines of devolution are changed and as long as it comes with other ‘additions’ as per accountability, transparency, representation etc. Kiri Yakka, you are welcome to your perceptions. Go ahead with your labels. They amuse me. Ok….so here’s more for the commentators. Have fun. Meanwhile I will work on my next article. Glad to get you guys typing away. Enjoy your day! :)

    • 0
      0

      Again the misrepresentations and sleights of hand.
      1. Are the Tamils lining up to get back you ask. They would if the Army wasn’t occupying swathes of their lands. They would if the area wasn’t under oppressive military control. They would if at least the current Constitutional provisions were implemented.
      2. You are yet to specify the details of the excesses of the LLRC. If it requires mentioning be specific. If not dont allude to it. At the very least give the readers the location where it could be found. As an editor you should be aware of good writing skills.
      3.As for the “devolutionists” taking things out of context I think your tenuous interpretations of the caveats is no better.
      4. I have not seen anyone stating that the government is BOUND to follow the recommendations, as in having a legal obligation to do so. Most people state that the government is morally obliged to at the very least follow the recommendations of the LLRC. Very different from saying that they are BOUND. As I said earlier, not implementing the recommendations only demonstrates the bad faith of the government.
      5.Again, give us an example of these people demanding a recommendation to be implemented immediately, despite a requirement for a constitutional amendment. The people’s complaint is that the government has done jack all in respect of those. Why dont you show some concrete steps taken by the government to enact constitutional amendments recommended by the LLRC? A draft for public comment perhaps? A direction to the Legal Draftsman may be? A policy document outlining scope of amendments? Yep, not likely.

      I’m glad you feel tickled by these comments. The fact that you take the trouble to comment has to be respected. I only wish you had the courage to speak the truth.

      • 0
        0

        Thanks sulaiman one more time for a befitting reply to Malinda’s comment.

        Malinda seems to be having a “Mooda Choon” with our comments. Let him continue to write similsr trash. I feel sorry for the News paper company that has employed him.

    • 0
      0

      Malinda:

      The deficit in governance argument in terms of devolution is a flawed one. No matter what sort of structure is evolved, governance issues, particularly transparency thereof, would be a problem unless there are effective checks and balances which have been thrown to the winds by the present regime. The speed with which MR sprinted to pass the 18A speaks volumes. Devolution in itself is not the problem.

    • 0
      0

      Mahinda,

      From what I surmised at that time, the 13th + envisaged incorporating recommendations in the APRC report. There was no inherent dangers in the APRC proposals. The important recommendations centred on the removal of the concurrent list and creating a Senate. They would have made devolution within a unitary state meaningful and not the charade it is today. Further, where are the accountability, transparency, representation etc., now in the government or the functioning PC’s? I do not think the concept of the 13 + was a horrendous blunder, but reneging on it was. This government is already paying a price for its disingenuous subterfuge!

      Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    • 0
      0

      “Meanwhile I will work on my next article. Glad to get you guys typing away.”
      It’s rather amusing you make the above statement when your slip is showing.
      Regrettably, days of enjoyment is not one envisages when are countrymen are pilloried from one post to another. (excuse the pun)

  • 0
    0

    oh Danny Boy,

    I suggest that you stop making racists statements, such as ” THE TAMILS ARE HARDWORKING CITIZENS “. What about the other true sons of the soil such as Malinda ? now on to the 4th article despite the heavy damage he is inflicting upon himself ? Is that not admirable? Is that not hard working ?

    The problem with racist statements is that other racists may end up believe in it. Because he is hard working, Malinda may discover himself not to be Muslim, but a Tamil. He would then inflict on us another article “The Tamil in me”. That’s ok too, because I doubt he reads what he writes.

    But then if he happens to read it, given its racist tone, he may end up believing it, giving rise to the possibility that Danny Boy should be concerned with.

    When Malinda discovers the “Tamil in him”, given his tendencies, he may inflict terrible damage on himself – depriving us the pseudo-intellectual entertainment that we have now begun to enjoy.

    • 0
      0

      Kiri Yakka

      “He would then inflict on us another article “The Tamil in me”.”

      Isn’t it the truth?

      For once, let him accept that he has Tamil gene from South India.

      • 0
        0

        Native Vedda

        We have now sadly discovered Malinda to be your long-lost twin brother, although he is a completely different Native Veddah who is badly in need of rehabilitation, reconstruction and real reconcilitaion!!!

        • 0
          0

          MNZ

          “We have now sadly discovered Malinda to be your long-lost twin brother,”

          Stupidity and Veddahs don’t mix hence he cannot be a Veddah.

          A descendant of stupid Tamil from Tamilnadu perhaps.

    • 0
      0

      Hilarious.

  • 0
    0

    Malinda:

    Whether your assumption of as to why Jehan or Pakia did not appear before the LLRC is debatable, views of those who indeed appeared before it had their representations ignored or missing. The note with which this LLRC exercise started is noteworthy. There were clarion calls for an independent international investigation soon after evidence of alleged atrocities during the final phase of the war came out from the CH4 and through the Darusman Report. It was particulalrly after the SG of UN had announced the setting-up of the Darusman Panel that occurred to MR to appoint the LLRC. It was purely to ward of the effects of the Darusman Report. It was in continuation of a long line of “broken-promises” premised on the belief that short memory would work towards SL’s advantage, as it had in all the other cases. Even during the present regime, this list includes the APRC, the Scotland Yard investigation on Raviraj, the IIGEP to monitor the COI. The promise of the implementation of the 13A was not a horrendous blunder, it was a calculated move to hijack the memory on the pursuit of a war that required the support of the Indian Govt. A blunder would be in order only if it was meant to be implemented but that was never the case with the regime. A Minister goes all the way to assure the UNHRC that all the recommendations of the LLRC would be implemented. When Peiris met the Indian establishment and Hilary Clinton, he promised the full implementation of the LLRC.Now, to come out with your cynical argument that it exceeded its mandate simply shows the continued dubious attitude of a state that has made “bluffing” its career.

    The wanted speed and the doable speed argument is just a hogwash. When he wanted to consolidate his position he had no qualms in dashing to the finish line in record speed, and got the 18A passed. The impeachment of the CJ is another case in point. When Basil wanted his pound of flesh, the Divineguma Bill was dragged through. It is not a case of wanton constitutional changes or the doable speed charade, it is about racing to commemorate who bluffs to most and the fastest.

    The Sinhala race is GENERALLY a violent race. All their actions point to this. When Tamils were voicing their democratic views in the Gandhian style, it was met with thuggery and murders and subsequently with rapes. The views may not have been congruent between the Tamils and the Sinhalese but when deomcratic space is actively pursued through peaceful means only to be met with abject and degraded violence shows that the Tamils had no choice but to meet that with violence, too. The form of Buddhism as practised in SL is of the violent type. Buddhism got a beating because of SL. The triumphalism attitude and the massacre and genocide shouldn’t come as surprising. That is an inherent nature of the general Sinhala populace. If it may be recalled, even during the height of the war, SLankans, including the clergy, were not harmed in anyway in Tamilnadu. It was only after the info on atrocities, and the brazen nature, that turned Tamilnadu against the Buddhist clergy as it is a know fact that they were largely responsible for the violence. Violence begets violence. I grew up with a lot of Buddhist teachings. Now I don’t want to have anything to do with it. It represents of unspeakable violence and shameful hate and debauchery. Whatever happened during and after the war clearly demonstrates that as long as the Tamils agree to live as a subjugated race, then the Sinhalese will welcome them, not or never as equals. This is true in the North and the East and also in Colombo. A friend of mine spoke to more than 300 Tamils in Colombo/Welliwata who despairingly revealed this. So, don’t give this crap of the so-called happy co-habitation nonsense. The Muslims are belatedly finding this out. Good for them.

    If you still dwell in the dream that it is SL that will decide what it wants to give, you are sadly mistaken. It lost that chance/opportunity. The Rajapakses may up their rhetoric for the locals like you but they are smart enough to toe the line where and when it becomes necessary or made necessary.

    • 0
      0

      jansee

      “The Sinhala race is GENERALLY a violent race.”

      Could you let me have evidence for your assertion.

      • 0
        0

        Native Vedda:

        Looks like you have been sleeping. Go through what I have written> If you can catch it, good for you, if not too bad.

  • 0
    0

    Jansee,

    You are really confusing us here.

    Malinda claims that he is a “Buddhist” using the term that “as a Buddhist”. Then he talks about the “Muslim in me “. Now native Vedha wants him to “accept his Tamil Genes”.

    So which Malinda are you addressing ?

    • 0
      0

      Kiri Yakka

      Eventually all Sinhala/Buddhists have to accept that they are the descendants of Tamils from South India.

      Please compare Sinhala/Buddhist stupidity with Tamilnadu Tamil stupidity both at par with each other. Further evidence can be obtained from studies on genetics.

      • 0
        0

        Native Vedda:

        I, too, read that your kind still live on trees, do they?

    • 0
      0

      Kiri Yakka:

      Can you please highlight where I have mentioned anything of this sort? I frankly don’t know what are you talking about.

  • 0
    0

    The boundaries that Malinda talks about are white drawn, meaning there was no united Sri Lanka before the British, just like India!
    As for devolution, the kandyans were the first to propose it.
    The harmony that Malinda talks about is from the perspective of the Sinhalese. Will the Sinhalese not feel anxious? He asks. This shows Malinda’s bodu bala sena affinities, not surprising!
    The majority of Tamil people living outside the northeast is because the up country Tamils are also included. Otherwise the Sri lankan Tamils for a majority part lived in the northeast. Sadly the war changed all that.
    Malinda sadly is a hypocrite just like his sister Ru Freeman. She talks about her daughter doing a paper on Israeli treatment of Palestinians using amnesty int’l reports and commends it, but when it comes to Sri Lanka suddenly amnesty int’l has got it all wrong. That’s the reality of Malinda and his ilk-bodu bala sena mentality embellished with sweet prose.

  • 0
    0

    For all those people who ask why cannot the Tamils demand for a separate Tamil country in Tamil Nadu instead of Sri Lanka (Eelam).

    From the very ancient time, Lanka (as first mentioned in the Ramayana) was a part of South India. The ancient Tamil was born on the sacred earth a part of which is now called Sri Lanka (Eelam). Sri Lanka (known as Eelam in Tamil) is a left over piece of land from the lost (sunken) landmass of ancient South India known as Kumari Kandam that broke away and submerged in the sea due to a massive earth quake in times long past. Today the scientists have evidence for it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZKiCpFisoY

    The first Tamil Sangam was held in this land. It is believed that God Siva attended the first Tamil Sangam. The Island of Sri Lanka was originally not a Buddhist island but a Siva Bhoomi – the Land of Siva right from the beginning. There also existed 5 ancient Eashwarams of Siva much before Buddhism arrived. Right from ancient history, Tamils are from both India and Sri Lanka. Tamil nation existed and still exists in both Tamil Nadu in India and Tamil Eelam (N&E) in Sri Lanka. All the ancient rulers of Sri Lanka (before Buddhism) were Saivaites irrespective of whether they were Nagar or Damilar (Chola) or Pandu (Pandya). Even after Sri Lanka broke away from South India, there was a natural bridge known as Rama Setu that existed during the early period between Tamil Nadu to Tamil Eelam (The NASA satellite image shows an ancient bridge in the Palk Strait between South India and Sri Lanka).

    Even Ravana, the king of Lanka as mentioned in the Ramayana was worshipping God Siva. It was only recently the Sinhalese started calling Sri Lanka a Dhamma Deepa of Buddha after the Buddhist missionary monk Mahinda introduced Buddhism where as the Tamils still call Sri Lanka as Eelam, the sacred Tamil land of Siva. Even the footstep at Adams Peak is originally known as Siva’s footstep (Sivanolipatham) and NOT Buddha’s. The original Siva boomi (sacred land of the Tamils) that broke away from South India due to the massive earth quake (Kumari Kandam) is the right full place for the Tamils. This is the reason why the world Tamils (including the Tamils in Tamil Nadu) is trying to establish a Tamil country known as Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka and NOT in India.

    The Sinhalese may say that, God Siva attending the first Tamil Sangam held in Kumari kandam (lost landmass) and Sri Lanka (Eelam) is the leftover piece of Kumari kandam (Siva boomi) is a Tamil mythology but it has more evidence than the Mahavamsa mythology which says about three magical visits of Buddha to Sri Lanka, a princess eloping with a Lion and having children, bandit prince Vijay’s visit on the day Buddha passed away, Buddha chose the Sinhalese and Sri Lanka to sustain his Dhamma and so on.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.